I Could Take My Gun Out And Shoot You

When I first heard about this play I must admit I had the usual expectations of a cliche ridden, predictable production dealing with gay issues that had been dealt with ad nauseum. The issues in this play are perhaps not new but what is different and compelling about this particular production is the way in which these issues are played out on stage thanks to an effective script which is pretty `spot on' and a cast of extremely promising actors. Rarely have I been to a performance where I if I didn't feel like I was part of it, I wanted to because the message of this play was clearly projected to the audience in a dramatic yet unpretentious way.

It has comedy, tragedy and mostly it's movement and timing is flawless. The cast gave excellent performances but for me, the standout performaces were Kirk, whose voice projection and facial expressions were engaging and believable, Tweed Harris, whose small role was one which gave the whole story a certain depth and of course the character those of us who have already seen the play, have come to know and love, Snap - played by James Robertson Harley. This character is immediately identifiable; colorful, funny and yet vulnerable. He makes you laugh and he also makes you realise that no matter who and what we are, we're just human beings.

Do yourselves a favour and go see this play. You will come away feeling like you've experienced a part of other people's lives which, in many ways, is so relevant to your own.

Opening night audiences are never the best audiences to perform to, but the cast of "I Could Take Out My Gun And Shoot You" pulled off the night wonderfully.

The one element of the play that really impressed me was how comfortable the actors appeared together onstage, considering half the cast were straight. This ease on stage really shows when watching the performance.

But however good the lead actors, particularly Kirk and Dale, the script was predictable, melodramatic and quite slow. The plot followed the very basic storyline of "Boy meets Girl", except the girl is substituted for boy. So the plot is as follows: Boy meets boy, boy loses boy, boy finds boy again.

Tweed Harris (writer, director and actor) announced at the end of the show the show was based on his life, which seemed like a bad idea since his life is not that exciting and, basically, shouldn't have been put on stage. And, lets face it, he hasn't been the only gay man in theatre to have 'come out' - so why is he so egotistical to make a play about himself? It felt as though the show was a big advertising scam to sell his autobiography (published by vanity press).

Scenes felt disjointed and some of the lines appeared to have been written in haste - especially at the end- in order to explain certain events (I won't tell you what it is just in case you haven't seen it yet).

Anyway, though the script was bad, the cast were great.
Dale's character Kevin was warm which combined well with Kirk's Charlie, who was unsure and timid. I especially liked the way Dale wasn't a stereotypical gay, but portrayed one that is just like everyone else (or a 'straight' gay). These two had great compatibilty on stage, though I found some scenes a little melodramatic , particularly after the Charlie/Kevin & Mr/Mrs Noakes scene.

James's Snap was energetic (which was a relief - as the rest of the cast were a little too unenergetic) but sometimes a little too enthusiastic. This enthusiasm was particularly unusual as occurred during the last scenes of the play which were supposed to be extremely sad. There was a quick transition (during Snap and Mr Noakes scene) between the sadness of the events that happened - to Snap becoming really happy and excited. Surely the director should have picked up on this...? Or was it the fault of the script?

Hannah and Melanie, who played Things and Coke, were pleasant to watch. Their characters really took backseat to the dramatic action. However, Things is the one to explain what happened to Charlie in one sentence, that appears to have been added hastedly in by the writer. I only say this as there was no building towards her sudden outburst of that one line and no follow up.

But overall, the cast did a lovely job.
I would like to thank them for a lovely night.
And perhaps next time, Mr Harris could stretch his budget to get an actual costuming person, rather then leave it up to the actors.

Hi Angelina

Thanks for the review - some great constructive criticism in that - and I'm glad that over all you did enjoy yourself :)

Was just wanting to clarify one thing with you though - which was probably not explained all that well when Tweed was talking about it at the end of the show.

By Tweed talking about there being a real "Charlie" and a "Steven" he was just referring to that there were special people in his life with those names.

The real stories for those two people are actually quite different.

Anyway - once again, many thanks for the review and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself as much as we did performing it.

James AKA Snap

It was not clear whether Angelina was reviewing the play, the performances, the wardrobe or Mr. Harris' autobiography, which she clearly has not read. I have read it and wish my life had been just half as exciting and/or romantic. I saw the play on the same night Angelina did and am bewildered, did we see the same play?
I found the play far from predictable, extremely moving and at times, very funny. The performances by all the young cast were brilliant. About the only thing we can agree on is that I thought the pace a little slow, however, I have seen the play again and it has picked up a great deal.
As for remarks about wardrobe, well Angelina, that seems to be another point you missed, the setting, the era and the mention of certain religious beliefs that dictated some of the wardrobe. Maybe you should see the play again - but this time keep your eyes, ears and mind open.

Wow! I came here to rave about the play but Angelina you need to be corrected. Tweed Harris' life dull? I bought and read his book. Travelling and teaching drama in Spain, Italy, North Africa, West Africa, Malaysia, China, Singapore. Starting the first all-black theatre in Nigeria. 44 years of married bliss with a gay partner. Getting married to a man (his partner) in a country which uses corporal punishment on gays. Being praised for his acting by the Queen of England. Being on stage with Sir Michael Caine and Sir Richard Attenborough. Being held overnight in jail on rape charges against a teenage girl, charges which were subsequently found to be false, of course. Being the first white man to enter a small African village and being stoned by children who had not seen a white man before. Being one of the first teachers from Australia to be exchanged with teachers in China.
Come on girl, just how much excitement do you expect in a man's life before you stop calling him dull?
By the way, anyone else reading this - go and see the play, it is first rate and the three male leads, exceptional.

I have perused 'D'gay mates', and agree that the life of Mr Harris (in my opinion obviously) does seem somewhat awesome. Perhaps the script could use a little inspiration from Mr HarrisÂ’ autobiography? It may open other corridors of which may be explored in the script giving rise to perhaps other relevant themes or issues. These may replace other (of what seemed to be) unnecessary paragraphs or even scenes in the script. -and yes, I have seen the show. The show's message: beautiful. The cast: great. See it before itÂ’s too late!

Just to correct you, Mr Fang, I was not reviewing Mr Harris's autobiography, as I have not read it.
I was merely commenting on the fact that the script which was performed was announced to have been based on Mr Harris's life, which I found to be boring.

In an earlier post, Mr Harley-Robertson cleared up the fact for me that the play was not based on Mr Harris's life but just referred to two special people in it (which were Charlie and Steven), and there real stories are alot different.

And I agree with Dr. Karajj with the idea that perhaps Mr Harris should've used actual material from his autobiography, as apparently it is alot more exciting then whatever was written for his stage show.

Yes Mr Gordon, we did see the play on the same night.
And Mr Gordon, when one reviews, it is their responsibility to evaluate the play based on every element. This includes set, costumes, script, performances, lighting, sound etc. and also context, in order to create an honest and fair opinion - rather then just accept what is presented to you.
I commented on Mr Harris's autobiography as he was advertising it in the back of his program. And I had also never heard of him before, though I frequent the theatre quite often, and I found it amusing. This did have an impact on how I watched the show, as it felt like a preview
Furthermore Mr Gordon, I did understand the era, relevance, context etc., but I still believe Mr Harris should've had an assisstant to handle costumes. I say this because costumes were ill-fitted (namely Dale's suit) and clashed. I didn't have a problem with the costumes themselves, but the lady who played Cheryl was obviously a teenager stuck in a tatty old wig to make her look older, and still dressed her own age rather then her character.
Costumes are so important, as they reflect not only the character, but the culture and era of a show. To be honest, in my opinion, in this production it seemed as though they were thrown together at the last minute.

From my "backseat" position i feel compelled to comment. As someone who frequents the theatre you will be aware that our show was clearly of limited budget. We did the best we could with the resources that were available to us. Your examples of our costuming were somewhat amusing, as you appear to think it is easy to put a very tall, kinda skinny man into a suit without it becoming ill-fitting. You also appear to think that teenagers (she is 22 by the way) wander the streets in floral print dresses and a nice cardigan.

Without sounding too sarcastic, i'm sorry that you dont believe our acting was good enough to portray our characters without a costume designer, and i am sorry that your years of theatre going have made you so jaded that you can not see past that.

I respected much of what you said in your first post. Much of your comment was constructive and useful. But if you think you think that just because you havent been lucky enough to have Tweed touch your life as we have, and that because his autobiography is on the back cover of our programme that our credibility is lacking, then you are sadly mistaken. I choose therefore to respect the opinions of the audience members who saw past the aesthetics, who were touched by this story and hope that next time you may be able to see past them in the same manner. And next time if you find our show boring - maybe you should just say that, instead of saying you enjoyed the performance, and then nitpicking at everything about it.

I would think that after reading all of this, the author of the play would be sorely tempted to put its title into action.